Non-incremental painting

As I've been asked, I'll just quote what I already submitted to
bugzilla, minus the typos:

I see no use in non-icremental paiting. It appears to exist only because
it was easier to implement than normal painting, which does not work
properly, as I've filed in at least one other bug report.

Not only should incremental paiting urgently be fixed, as described
there, but non-incremental painting, or the option to choose between the
two, should be removed as a whole.

If anyone can think of a usecase where that non-intuitive, unpredictable
painting mode is actually useful, please prove me wrong.

Until then, I interpret the mere existance of that painting mode as an
excuse to not admit one of the most serious flaws in gimp with regard to
painting.

To be blunt, as long as there is no way for a painter to properly
anticipate the color in which he draws unless he draws in short,
non-self-overlapping strokes (which, admittedly, is typical for
water-color et al), gimp may be a powerful graphics-editor but remains
nothing but a toy for painting (and all efforts related to painting such
as providing well-designed presets remain futile).

Non-incremental painting

Your tone, sucks, as always. It sucks so much that I ask
you to leave us alone in the future. Please go away.

--mitch

On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 15:33 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:

As I've been asked, I'll just quote what I already submitted to
bugzilla, minus the typos:

I see no use in non-icremental paiting. It appears to exist only because
it was easier to implement than normal painting, which does not work
properly, as I've filed in at least one other bug report.

Not only should incremental paiting urgently be fixed, as described
there, but non-incremental painting, or the option to choose between the
two, should be removed as a whole.

If anyone can think of a usecase where that non-intuitive, unpredictable
painting mode is actually useful, please prove me wrong.

Until then, I interpret the mere existance of that painting mode as an
excuse to not admit one of the most serious flaws in gimp with regard to
painting.

To be blunt, as long as there is no way for a painter to properly
anticipate the color in which he draws unless he draws in short,
non-self-overlapping strokes (which, admittedly, is typical for
water-color et al), gimp may be a powerful graphics-editor but remains
nothing but a toy for painting (and all efforts related to painting such
as providing well-designed presets remain futile).
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing listgimp-developer-list@gnome.orghttp://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Non-incremental painting

If anyone can think of a usecase where that non-intuitive, unpredictable
painting mode is actually useful, please prove me wrong.

Until then, I interpret the mere existance of that painting mode as an
excuse to not admit one of the most serious flaws in gimp with regard to
painting.

To be blunt, as long as there is no way for a painter to properly
anticipate the color in which he draws unless he draws in short,
non-self-overlapping strokes (which, admittedly, is typical for
water-color et al), gimp may be a powerful graphics-editor but remains
nothing but a toy for painting (and all efforts related to painting such
as providing well-designed presets remain futile).

Dude,

Replacing lack of technical expertise with trolling doesn't work. Not
everyone is as generous as las to spend two friggin hours explaining
you how automation on MIDI events works, while facing your, frankly
speaking, arrogant behaviour. The trick isn't going to work every
time, and definitely not in GIMP lists.

You are more than welcome to ask question and even question decisions,
but don't expect everyone to just rush having a conversation with you.

Non-incremental painting

Mitch & "Dude",

I did not ask for your generousity. I reported this flaw on the
bugtracker, was asked to bring it up on the list, did so, and, frankly,
don't give a tiny bit about how emotionally sensitive you are over it.

And if you are unable to discuss the point at hand and are only capable
of returning insults, be my guest, but don't expect any response other
than this because I've better things to do with my time than leading
this kind of stupid argument.

Anyone else willing to comment on the actual technical issue,
irrespective of how "arrogant" I sound or how much my "tone sucks", I'd
welcome it.

However, Michael is maintaining this list and "politely" asked me to
leave, hence, I will only reply to you in private for not to offend him
any further.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 07:39:35PM +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Cedric Sodhi wrote:

If anyone can think of a usecase where that non-intuitive, unpredictable
painting mode is actually useful, please prove me wrong.

Until then, I interpret the mere existance of that painting mode as an
excuse to not admit one of the most serious flaws in gimp with regard to
painting.

To be blunt, as long as there is no way for a painter to properly
anticipate the color in which he draws unless he draws in short,
non-self-overlapping strokes (which, admittedly, is typical for
water-color et al), gimp may be a powerful graphics-editor but remains
nothing but a toy for painting (and all efforts related to painting such
as providing well-designed presets remain futile).

Dude,

Replacing lack of technical expertise with trolling doesn't work. Not
everyone is as generous as las to spend two friggin hours explaining
you how automation on MIDI events works, while facing your, frankly
speaking, arrogant behaviour. The trick isn't going to work every
time, and definitely not in GIMP lists.

You are more than welcome to ask question and even question decisions,
but don't expect everyone to just rush having a conversation with you.

Non-incremental painting

2012/1/28 Cedric Sodhi

Mitch & "Dude",

I did not ask for your generousity. I reported this flaw on the
bugtracker, was asked to bring it up on the list, did so, and, frankly,
don't give a tiny bit about how emotionally sensitive you are over it.

And if you are unable to discuss the point at hand and are only capable
of returning insults, be my guest, but don't expect any response other
than this because I've better things to do with my time than leading
this kind of stupid argument.

Cedric:You could have reported the same issue without adding your personal
thoughts about why they didn't implement things the way you consider
correct, calling the program "nothing but a toy" and calling collaborations
"futile".That's not polite and you can't expect a good reaction when you put things
in that way.You're addressing to human beings who coincidentally work on an application
you can use freely, using their spare time. Expect some emotion.
Don't play the victim if you're not being treated well. You started it.

Non-incremental painting

Cedric, the problem is that the only vibe your intiial post gave off is a "this is wrong" and a "this is totally wrong". You need to explain the problem in detail (e.g. provide a contrived scenario to demonstrate it) and then suggest (again, in detail) what the proper result should have be instead. You did neither.

As for me, the one problem I have with the "incremental" tool option is that it does not mix with alpha-blending. If I specify an opacity of 50% and use the incremental option, (due to the way GIMP internally processes brush strokes) the end result is brush strokes painted with 99% or so opacity because, with the default brush spacing of 15%, the pixels within the stroke area are receiving about 6 strokes of 'paint'. Yes this is technically correct behavior, but the end result is neither correct nor intuitive (bug #588984) in the eyes of the end user. This is less of an issue when you are painting with 100% opacity to begin with, but it
still means that fuzzy brushes end up with very hard edges because along the brush's edge those same pixels are getting painted several times over.

Non-incremental painting is at least intuitive: The entire stroke receives a
specified, uniform opacity (brush dynamics notwithstanding) and if you
need to make multiple strokes over the same area then you can do so in, well, separate strokes.

I, too, would like to see an option where you can paint strokes that are of a predictable opacity (as non-incremental painting already does) but simultaneously allows them to overlap with previous strokes, a la Corel Painter. But I'm at a loss, even conceptually, on how that could be done.

On a tangent, one trick I found with painting straight lines is that since you need to click to set a starting point before using the Shift modifier, if you Undo the initial click you can still use the Shift modifier to paint a straight line with a single stroke without that original poin being applied to the canvas. This can be useful in some cases for single lines at a time....

I did not ask for your generousity. I reported this flaw on the
bugtracker, was asked to bring it up on the list, did so, and, frankly,
don't give a tiny bit about how emotionally sensitive you are over it.

And if you are unable to discuss the point at hand and are only capable
of returning insults, be my guest, but don't expect any response other
than this because I've better things to do with my time than leading
this kind of stupid argument.

Anyone else willing to comment on the actual technical issue,
irrespective of how "arrogant" I sound or how much my "tone sucks", I'd
welcome it.

However, Michael is maintaining this list and "politely" asked me to
leave, hence, I will only reply to you in private for not to offend him
any further.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 07:39:35PM +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Cedric Sodhi wrote:

If anyone can think of a usecase where that non-intuitive, unpredictable
painting mode is actually useful, please prove me wrong.

Until then, I interpret the mere existance of that painting mode as an
excuse to not admit one of the most serious flaws in gimp with regard to
painting.

To be blunt, as long as there is no way for a painter to properly
anticipate the color in which he draws unless he draws in short,
non-self-overlapping strokes (which, admittedly, is typical for
water-color et al), gimp may be a powerful graphics-editor but remains
nothing but a toy for painting (and all efforts related to painting such
as providing well-designed presets remain futile).

Dude,

Replacing lack of technical expertise with trolling doesn't work. Not
everyone is as generous as las to spend two friggin hours explaining
you how automation on MIDI events works, while facing your, frankly
speaking, arrogant behaviour. The trick isn't going to work every
time, and definitely not in GIMP lists.

You are more than welcome to ask question and even question decisions,
but don't expect everyone to just rush having a conversation with you.

Non-incremental painting

Hi Cedric

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 05:51:40PM +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:

Mitch & "Dude",

I did not ask for your generousity. I reported this flaw on the
bugtracker, was asked to bring it up on the list, did so, and, frankly,
don't give a tiny bit about how emotionally sensitive you are over it.

And if you are unable to discuss the point at hand and are only capable
of returning insults, be my guest, but don't expect any response other
than this because I've better things to do with my time than leading
this kind of stupid argument.

Anyone else willing to comment on the actual technical issue,
irrespective of how "arrogant" I sound or how much my "tone sucks", I'd
welcome it.

However, Michael is maintaining this list and "politely" asked me to
leave, hence, I will only reply to you in private for not to offend him
any further.

You were kick banned from IRC. It doesn't mean you can come back in
other ways on mailing lists, bugzilla, etc. We banned you because you
were rude and didn't want you around.

Non-incremental painting

On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 01:08 +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:

Definitely. He can begin by apologizing for how

[...]

The way forward is always to forgive, as long as the miscreant clearly
makes a conscious effort to improve, and of course does not wear shoes
or white socks :-) It is of no avail to set people to a higher standard
than they can achieve. The child must learn to crawl before dancing.

Sometimes mailing lists and IRC bring out the aspergers' syndrome in us
all: a lack of empathy, a tendency to forget that on the other end of
the wire are people just like us, with feelings and needs.

Of course, sometimes no amount of working with someone will get them to
change, and at some point yes, we all run out of patience, but then
perhaps it is we who are at fault, who have also failed to meet our own
impossible standards of perfection.

Non-incremental painting

If anyone can think of a usecase where that non-intuitive, unpredictable
painting mode is actually useful, please prove me wrong.

Now that's funny. I'm a MyPaint developer, and I know this discussion, but
with opposite signs. MyPaint only supports what GIMP calls incremental
painting, and users are asking again and again that we implement
non-incremental painting. Just look at the recent discussion here: